I don't have the ability to easily post pics/gifs from my work computer, but it looked to me, contrary to what the TV announcers said, that that wasn't a legal catch.
He had one foot down, and then as he was falling his thigh/rear end appeared to hit out of bounds simultaneously with his knee landing in bounds. As I saw it, he never got two feet down, nor one other body part.
This reminds me of the call in the Packers-Giants game in 2011 at MetLife (another travesty of officiating where all the calls went against the Giants - why does that keep happening?), when Jake Ballard seemed to clearly have one knee down in the corner of the end zone - as proven by pictures flying around BBI the next day - but the refs, however, ruled that his knee was not in bounds.
Did anyone else see it the way I did?
Can someone post pics/gifs of the play?
Yep I agree.
However I recalled a recent play (which I don't remember the details) - but a toe hit in, then the heel of the same foot landed out - and the play was incomplete. So that made me wonder, if the bottom of the forearm near the elbow hits first (and not the elbow direct) shouldn't there be a distinction between the two? Shouldn't a forearm hit be treated like the 'toe-to-heel' being one foot even if it happens in 2 parts? In which case, no TD for AB
Very semantic issue, but just something I was wondering. In the end it was called a TD so tough to overturn without being well versed in these details. Very close either way
That was easily the least of the controversial calls/non-calls from yesterday
However I recalled a recent play (which I don't remember the details) - but a toe hit in, then the heel of the same foot landed out - and the play was incomplete. So that made me wonder, if the bottom of the forearm near the elbow hits first (and not the elbow direct) shouldn't there be a distinction between the two? Shouldn't a forearm hit be treated like the 'toe-to-heel' being one foot even if it happens in 2 parts? In which case, no TD for AB
Very semantic issue, but just something I was wondering. In the end it was called a TD so tough to overturn without being well versed in these details. Very close either way
That was last weeks game on an Int. The reason it was called that way is because of the natural progression of the step. The Db was running backwards when he made the INT his last step completed with the heel out of bounds. This TD by Brown was him falling sideways with both feet and his lower body hitting in bounds prior to the elbow going out
Brown was running forward when he went out of bounds, Apple was falling backward when he made the Int. Browns step progression ends with the toes, Apples ended with the heel out of bounds
This was in essence a jump ball and the Free Safety runs himself out of the play.
Think of it this way:
When walking forward the last thing your foot does is lift the toes
When walking backward the last thing it does is plant the heel.
A step is the completion of either the toe or the heel planting. That is why while moving forward two toes in = Completion, when moving backward two heels in = Completion. In the case of Brown, its the "one knee = two feet" type of catch with his lower body being the "Knee"
Quote:
I'm 'guessing' that the elbow is separate and therefore was #2 hit inbounds...close but it was a TD
However I recalled a recent play (which I don't remember the details) - but a toe hit in, then the heel of the same foot landed out - and the play was incomplete. So that made me wonder, if the bottom of the forearm near the elbow hits first (and not the elbow direct) shouldn't there be a distinction between the two? Shouldn't a forearm hit be treated like the 'toe-to-heel' being one foot even if it happens in 2 parts? In which case, no TD for AB
Very semantic issue, but just something I was wondering. In the end it was called a TD so tough to overturn without being well versed in these details. Very close either way
That was last weeks game on an Int. The reason it was called that way is because of the natural progression of the step. The Db was running backwards when he made the INT his last step completed with the heel out of bounds. This TD by Brown was him falling sideways with both feet and his lower body hitting in bounds prior to the elbow going out
And a sick play by AB as usual
Vid of TD - ( New Window )
Quote:
.
Think of it this way:
When walking forward the last thing your foot does is lift the toes
When walking backward the last thing it does is plant the heel.
A step is the completion of either the toe or the heel planting. That is why while moving forward two toes in = Completion, when moving backward two heels in = Completion. In the case of Brown, its the "one knee = two feet" type of catch with his lower body being the "Knee"
And a sick play by AB as usual Vid of TD - ( New Window )
I get the rules state this as accurate, but it just doesn't make any sense at all to me.
I get the rules state this as accurate, but it just doesn't make any sense at all to me.
The question is if 2 feet down = 1 elbow/arm down (both signifying possession), why aren't they officiated the same?
That was my initial thought as well but I think a db's first instinct is to break up the pass. In that moment though a big push might just have been enough to force him out. I can't really get on Jenkins there though, Hall, that's a completely different story. Where was he going? Did he see an imaginary receiver back there because I still can't figure out where the hell he was going.
That said, I had more of a question on AB's sideline catch than his TD catch. Yes AB did a great job getting two feet down and they made a big point of that but it sure looked to me like he bobbled/ recaught the ball and they never showed that. Might very well have been worth a challenge there IMO.